antaress73
-
Posts
891 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by antaress73
-
-
Not to mention an AP shell skewering three at the same time
-
I will never repent or else the ghost of Maurice Richard will uppercut me at night
But I like the Red Sox better than the damn Yankees hehe I used to cheer for my beloved Expos in the National League (and was a regular at the bleachers during high school, only 1$ ) and for the Red Sox in the american league (not the Jays, screw Toronto LOL). I loved Wade Boggs, Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Mike Greenwell, old Tom Seaver, Oil Can Boyd (played for the expos too along with Spike Owen). Later you got Pedro Martinez (developed in Montreal) that gave Boston his first world series since the Babe Ruth trade (the curse). Spotting for russian infantry is fine. No complaints there. Its the vehicules that I SOMETIMES find problematic, not always. Yeah I agree you're in deep s--- if you're dealing with Abrams using RPGs but I like the sport aspect of it
No problems with Bradleys. They tend to go BOOM when in RPG range. -
yeah agree on the Ukrainian tanks too. Interesting on the Kurganets and Griefel. When is Kurganets slated to enter service then? I apologize I thought you were Russian, what nationality are you then? Anyways regards bud
For the Kurg, it is much less technogically challenging and less expensive and would solve a BIG problem for the russians. This is an assumption on my part.
As for where I'm from... Well, let's just say french is my first language and I do not like the Boston Bruins much
-
I think actually the infantry spotting is about right. Same with the tank. You and I will have to agree to disagree. The other stuff you mentioned hampers the Russians but still doesnt have anything to do with spotting. Also the RPGs you named I dont believe the Russian Army hasnt adopted.
The Arty deployed HEAT bomblets would be the same as US having DPCIM (sp?) so really both sides didnt get it. I have no knowledge of the T72B4 being in active duty. Could be wrong. Just because theres a weapon system out there made by someone doesnt mean its being used by the Russian military. Ive noticed this a lot with other Russian players. Theres plenty of equipment made by companies in the US or that the US military could buy if it wanted but has no adopted and therefore isnt in the TO&E.
Kurganets and the whole Armata thing - I mean cmon man really? Theyre not in active service or even mass production. They're still very much in an early stage of development and wouldnt be around in a conflict taking place in 18 months.
The side hull issue on the T series has been fixed - the fact is that it is that weak. I agree on the AT13 thing *perhaps* - meaning Im taking your word for it - though Ive never suffered from them being ineffectual and have killed both Abrams and Bradleys aplenty with them. The lasing thing is a problem and sucks, but it also affects the US. The Russians have robotic reaction times too to with LWRs. Their tanks just arent as good as Abrams. No offense Antaress but being Russian are you sure you're just not upset about the inequality in equipment and trying to artificially shape the game? Reality is reality, and though there are certain advantages the Russians would have in real life that they dont in game the same applies for the US. Now having no APS alone is enough for me. Ill buy some veteran troops but take mostly regulars and I get wins against the US. Its how the player plays. Using only veteran and crack Russian troops really is just a form of nerfing the game for 'balance' like an RTS when really most of the issues with the Russian side are real life deficiencies that having some of the things you mentioned wouldnt fix -
for one the RPGs mentioned havent been adopted by the Russian Army
Griefel ammo is fine but it still wont fix the T90AMs armor or fact that its still about 10-15 years behind Abrams technology especially with thermals and has much weaker armor.
Even with the panoramic sight on the B4 I know the B3 upgrade on the T72 really revolutionized the weapon system bringing it decades ahead of where it was - and I still think theyre godawful and would rather have T64 Bulats. Maybe its anecdotal luck but I never ever have good luck with the T72s.
More Krasnopol ammo wont do much- its still relies on lazing the target and thats fine and all, I guess it would help for more precision missions. But lasing tanks for Russians doesnt work as well against US as US vs Russians. Because the US uses GPS guided munitions so its basically a surprise while the US player will get a laser warning. And as I said, they left out US stuff, even stuff still in active duty like the A10 Warthog. And clusterbombs and DPICM munitions (again sp?)
The robotic reaction times are just part of playing a game where theres an AI at some level.
Finally infantry spotting is really about equal. BFC has stated repeatedly and its true that no side gets a nation bias. That said, the average US squad has more optics on its weapons and with its men than a Russian squad, and the Javelin launchers CLU unit can be used as an excellent Thermal imaging spotting device.
At night the US night vision obviously is far superior to Russian and is noticeable. But still using good tactics in game even with regular russian troops vs reg americans (who at default settings for both sides you'll see more reg and green russians while more reg and vet americans) I tend to see during the day my infantry spots about the same as the US does. A lot is just situational. The US thermals on Bradleys and all other AFVS are far superior to Russian though and account for superior tank spotting. Its true though and just a fact of life right now and will be in the hypothetical 2017 conflict.
You play however you want - its your version of the game and your opponent, but shaping it with veteran and crack troops is really just using a method to nerf the US side some to gain an artificial advantage.
Yes, the US side has advantages over the Russians. This would be true in real life with many of the issues in game. Yes there are other issues that would apply in real life that would help the Russians. Would it completely reverse the results we see in game? I highly doubt it, and many of the effects wouldnt be seen on the battlefield at our level in game. I find that with lots of practice using the Russians, and asking the US player to either not use APS or restrict it to HQ vehicles only, that a player with enough experience with the Russians can consistently win and when they lose give the US player a bloody nose anyways. And this is with regular troops across the board, with some of my tanks being veteran, maybe one crack, and maybe making a Khriz or two I take veteran and or crack.
hehehe quite a reaction
1- At long range I agree that US thermals are far superior . But at close range I've seen spotting slowness that is frankly mesmerizing on part of the russians on the order of "Stop taking selfies in the middle of combat Ivan"
2- I'm not russian
(maybe on my mother's side, unconfirmed, she was adopted but the little info we have DO points in that direction) I have no trouble playing the russians and getting my fair share of winning. My favorite opponent is less at ease. WHen I play the americans, especially against the AI, I like my russians to give me some challenge.3- GPS precision arty can be jammed (and is at the strong EW setting). The russians are VERY strong and superior to the US in jamming capabilities. But having a few more missions of Krasnopol would be realistic since John Kettler cited sources saying that Krasnopol is much more widespread than shown in the game.
3- RPG-27 is in active service (RPG-28 is not I agree). Having RPG-27s instead of RPG-26 as disposables would make russian infantry very lethal for tanks and AFVs at close range.
4- Grifel and new cannon would make Abrams pretty much die (penetration AND energy left for internal catastrophic damage) as soon as hit under 2000 meters, With good tactics this would do much to equalize the fight. At long range, beside spotting, with russians on defense in hull down positions at 3000 meters, the ABrams would be toast. I've killed 7 Abrams for 3 T-90AM lost under these conditions at 3000 meters, with relikt stopping many sabot rounds and this with the actual much less powerful gun and ammo.
5- Kurganets is more likely to be fielded soon than Armata. BMP-2 and 3s are not very survivable and that's the new trend in the russian army.
6- The lasing at battlesight ranges affects the russian player more than the american. Smoke deployment is slower for the Russians and US reaction for firing is faster. On the other side, russian aiming is a little slower and US smoke deployment is almost instant. That makes lasing at close range for the russians a very bad proposition but much less of a problem for the US side. You can battle russian tanks head-on with the Abrams and win regularly. You have to be much sneakier playing the russians. That's why getting close, surprise and flanking on the offensive and ambushes when on the defensive are very important. All this is often spoiled by having the russian side lase all the time.
7- I just want the game to be the most realistic possible while not underestimating any side. I agree with the designers on 75% of the stuff in game. They made decisions according to the info they had (much more available on the US side) and within the time constraints they had to abide to. I do think that the Ukrainians tanks are awful at spotting and they should not be that bad in real life. I.ve seen WWII tanks spot better and faster under the same conditions in the WWII titles (Red Thunder)
Regards Sublime !
-
I tend to think that spotting and reactions are not what they should be, especially for the Russians and some bugs persists that mainly play in disfavor of the Russians , thats why I artificially use veteran and crack Russians to compensate when I play against a friend who also own the game . I know this is not realistic . We do the same when he plays the Russians. When.this is fixed (side turret armor of Abrams too strong or AT-13 Too weak, no lasing at close and battlesight range, slower and less robotic reaction times, side Hull armor on T series too weak, slow spotting in perfect conditions and less than 1000 meters for the Russians ) or more state of the art and powerful equipment (RPG-27, rpg-28, weapons optics , a T-90AM1 with that new gun with giffel ammo, T72B4 with panoramic sight, kurganets, more krasnopol ammo dotation, arty deployed HEAT bomblets with 100mm pen each) is added to the russian family we'll revise.
-
I tend to think that spotting and reactions are not whay they should be, especially for the Russians and some bugs persists that mainly play in disfavor of the Russians thats why I artificially use veteran and crack Russians to compensate when I play against a friendfriend who also own thje game . I know this is not realistic . We do the same whenwhen he plays the Russians. When.this is fixedfixed (side turret armor of Abrams too strong or AT-13 Too weak, no lasing at close and battlesight range, slower and less robotic reaction times, side Hull armor on T series too weak, slow spotting in perfect conditions and less than 1000 meters for the Russians ) or more state of the art and powerful equipment (RPG-27, rpg-28, weapons optics , a T-90AM1 with that new gun with giffel ammo, T72B4 with panoramic sight, kurganets, more krasnopol ammo dotation, arty deployed HEAT bomblets with 100mm pen each) is added to the russian family we'll revise.
-
Javelin is standard US equipment and frankly in the games i've played they shoot once and then get killed by return fire, are supressed by HE artillery or are severely degraded by my artillery deployed smokescreens. They Kill my tanks 50% of the time since I dash from tree to tree whenever possible so they are not a uberweapon against a competent russian commander (like sublime). As for Abrams having an excellent chance of surviving return fire , I would say moderate since weapons mount, top armor and lower Hull penetrations are fairly common at the average ranges in game (depressingly so when I play the US). Even the thickest armored parts (right and left front turret) are ônly 100% effective if the shot comes from head-on. As soon as the shooter is not right in front (a little bit to the side) you start to see disabling partial and full penetrations on those areas. You achieve this by having multiple spread out shooters at a single Abrams. The only part of the Abrams 100% invulnerable is the upper front Hull IF the shooter is at the same terrain level. If its higher its à question of luck.
I always play as or play against veteran and crack Russians .
-
I was wondering if the Motiv will be included to be fired by the 2S19 ?
"
"The 2S19 can fire Motiv projectiles with self-homing munitions, too. The Motiv submunition designed by the Basalt enterprise was fielded 10 years ago. It is unified for various combat arms and is also used in MLRSs and disposable cluster bombs. The Motiv well surpasses its US analogue by the aggregate efficiency index. It has higher jamming resistance and armor penetration (up to 100mm, which largely exceeds the horizontal armour resistance of the most advanced foreign tanks, namely the M1A2 Abrams, Leclerc, Leopard 2, etc.
Works on the Motiv are going on to enhance its jamming resistance, improve homing operations and warhead efficiency."
Source: army-guide site
http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3933.html
-
Kieme's : anu update on the status of the weapon/ vehicules silhouettes ?
-
damn you are right. I am so used to seeing it I didn't even think about it CMSF never had that.
Well when they get around to redoing that one it will have it.
Shock force doesnt even have hit text
-
Antaress - How do I like things expensive? I didnt get APS and I got T90As with a BTR tac group. thats a pretty budget choice if you ask me.
Also yeah arenas great against Ukr bur thats irrelevant to this convo. I encounter javelins ans abrams at least 10x more than any Tow2B launches so arena to me especially against US is useless. Especially since the Bradleys autocannon will penetrate any Russ armor side. And i think many Russian players are exagerrating how tough abrams sides are. for example both abrams kills in this qb were flank shots. hull to be sure but still.
you said using APS cheapens things earlier, should have used a quote. That was a joke;) As for side turret "bug". See that screenshot with three hits from AT-13s on the turret side that didnt penetrate despite having 900mm+ penetration and a tandem warhead. I never saw an Abrams turret side penetration from anything less than a Kryz or Kornet in game. Hull sides ? Yes, plenty, even from RPGs where there's no ERA coverage. You could kill an M1A2 SEP in shock force with an RPG-29 penetration on the turret side on a regular basis. Agreed, on SEP v.2 the side armor was improved and there's ERA but the single layer ERA shouldnt be a big factor against a tandem AT-13 or RPG and its very doubtful the turret side armor has gone from less than 650mm on the M1A2 Sep v.1 against CE to 900mm + on the SEP. V2 which is a level of protection that would make it impervious to the AT-13.
-
One realistic way to give a small nerf to US forces is set their electronic warfare level to Light, or one level higher than whatever you have the Russians on. Russian EW is very good.
from everything I read on Russian electronic warfare capabilities (including from US sources).. Russian EW would have a strong effect on US forces and US EW a light effect on russian forces. That's a pretty big nerf right there.
-
i actually see this all the time and its part of my advice list for red players. if the tunguska gets the drop on a bradley or abrams itll hit them so hard and so frequently more often than not they sit there having subsystems ripped apart just taking a pounding until saved by another blue vehicle(s), tunguska moves or runs outta ammo. its like the super high RoF stuns the crew into inaction. I have seen abrams pop smoke or reverse sometimes but Ive seen at least ten plus times a brad or abrams will sit and just get hammered for a few turns ..
I used this to my advantage putting a tunguska and two T-90As behind a building. The M1s get pounded into inaction by the tunguska and killed by the T-90s.
-
I think that by design, the Bradley is supposed to be able to take out enemy MBTs. The fact that the BMP family have a hard time doing so is their fault. It's not Omar's fault, you know.
Well the BMPs do fine against Ukranian MBTs. And the side turret armor of the Abrams is rated way too high (bug and reported, might be fixed in a future patch ) and would protect much less than modeled in the game against a tandem warhead AT-10 stabber that the BMP uses (and against RPGs and AT-13s) so it doesnt play in favor of the BMP against the US.
-
Arena would have stopped that TOW-2B, but since you like things to be expensive, seems like your wish was granted. Oh and btw, Relikt on top of the T-90AM and in a lesser measure Kontakt-5 can and will stop TOW-2Bs at the right spot and even the occasionnal Javelin.
I do not agree that ARENA is useless against the US. It makes the TOW-2B only marginally effective leaving only the javelin and the Abrams as reliable ground tools against russian MBTs for the US player. In my opinion, this is not something to neglect as a Russian player. Not to mention the odd AT-4 to the side it protects against .On BMPs, they are even more useful since they could get closer to US infantry.
Is it worth it point wise in the context of a PBEM quick battle? I dunno.
-
It's not that special or game changing , thales french optics , a btr frame and maybe new ammo for the gun. Its a nice weapon system but nothing to write home about.
Its not 1980 anymore guys. More like 1913 with nukes, which should worry us more
-
I see little point for Russia to modify their BMP-3s to that level. It's still BMP-3 hull protection wise, and I gave specifics of that just few pages back. Kurganets-25 should provide more protection with new alloys used, and is by default intantry-friendly, and, most importantly, upgrade-ready. It allows add-on protection out of the box, turret upgrades have already been planned and actually in-progress (R&D). Manufacturer needs stuff to export, and they can't export Kurg, so that's their current strategy.
RE: Armata's screens. Look closely. These are not just touch screens, these are MFDs with touch capability. There are usual buttons on them like on usual MFDs.
Dragoon can be equipped with that 57mm gun, or even 125mm one O_o
Fair, they should introduce the Kurg massively (less expensive than armata) but I still maintain that an upgraded T-90AM1 with the armata sensors, gun and ammo would be a nice solution and insurance against Armata's development problems or cost while greatly augmenting the capabilities of the russian tank force. Keep the armata as a prestige weapon (if it works well) for elite units.
-
as for showing off military stuff in detail, RUssia is a much more open and modern society than the western world care to acknowledge. The US has the military channel for that
-
I agree with steve. This upgrade of the BMP is a huge improvement and could make it on par with some western equivalents, even sensor wise. They should also stick to the T-90AM with improved sensors (which they already have with the armata program) and equip it with the new gun designed for the Armata and a new caroussel for the grifel ammo series, which would put it on par or even slightly superior to the M1A2 sep V.2 on the firepower part of the equation.The T-90AM1 (my designation to differenciate it from the in-game T-90AM) would be the mainstay of the Russian Tank force and the Armata would be introduced in much lower numbers and used as a "hotspot" tank for a few elite formations along with Kurganets. Much like the T-34-85/IS-2 combo in world war II.
The US didnt introduce a new vehicule for heavy mechanized formations since 1980. They improved and upgraded the Bradley and the M1 since then.
Could we see the BMP-3 "Dragoon" in a module or content add-on ? Steve ?
-
How good is it compared to Catherine FC or the sensors on an M1A2 ? Any indications they may use it not only for Armata but for the t-90AM upgrade they are doing ? C;ould be interesting as a vehicule upgrade for the T-90AM in the game .Catherine XP is produce under license in Russia.
-
I found them very good at least at the ranges shown in the video. The armata should then be even better. Adding all the cameras for situational awareness I think kurganets could be in the same spotting class as the Bradley in-game.
-
What I found interesting are the multiple cameras for situational awareness and the huge screen (western sized) for the thermal imager. The screens on the catherine FC were pretty small (on the order of 3 times as small) which would explain the delay in spotting for russian stuff. With such big screens it should be much easier and faster to spot and identify and could cut 50% on the time to spot for the kurganets compared to actual russian vehicules in the game. There a whole segment where the host is playing with the thermals and it seems pretty good. What do panzer think about the quality of the thermals ? The guy could read a license plate. It starts at 31:39 here. There's another segment (thermal screen) where he shoots at a van at 34:06.
-
They are regular and veteran
-
They are regular and veteran
But I like the Red Sox better than the damn Yankees hehe I used to cheer for my beloved Expos in the National League (and was a regular at the bleachers during high school, only 1$ ) and for the Red Sox in the american league (not the Jays, screw Toronto LOL). I loved Wade Boggs, Jim Rice, Dwight Evans, Mike Greenwell, old Tom Seaver, Oil Can Boyd (played for the expos too along with Spike Owen). Later you got Pedro Martinez (developed in Montreal) that gave Boston his first world series since the Babe Ruth trade (the curse). 
No problems with Bradleys. They tend to go BOOM when in RPG range. 
Russians Revenge - Sublimes DAR vs Jammer Russian Attack (JAMMERSIX STAY OUT)
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
no Bradleys ?? impossible !